Hazing in the modern army. Hazing and hazing

Statistics from recent military conscriptions indicate that the lion's share of Russian conscripts are still trying to avoid military service. The majority of young men surveyed cite a reluctance to join the armed forces precisely because of the fear of impending hazing. It turns out that Russian guys are afraid not of attacks by aggressors, but of hazing, hazing, which takes place among military personnel, or are these just rumors, speculations that cause confusion.

What is hazing in the army

The first mentions of violations of the regulations by employees and the development of so-called hazing were already noted in the Soviet army. In the 90s, there was an opinion that army lawlessness was crossing all boundaries, many simply did not know how to deal with it.

To be honest, the majority of today’s campaigners don’t even know what is commonly considered to be considered “hazing,” because a lot has changed and similar problems have been completely eliminated in many parts. The Russian army is famous for its strict procedures, which significantly distinguishes it from the Soviet army, although “relapses” also occur.

Hazing is a unique process of educating and training recently conscripted military personnel by colleagues of earlier conscription, the so-called “grandfathers.” To make it easier to separate the concept of “hazing” from this definition, let us immediately stipulate that the second speaks of obvious violations of the regulations by soldiers at any time of service.

Speaking about hazing at the level of army understanding, we are talking about the training of young soldiers by guys of an older generation, the so-called demobilization. When the more experienced ones tell, show how to behave correctly with seniors in rank, address, walk, communicate with each other, follow a clear daily routine. Anything that goes beyond the bounds of reason, when demobilized soldiers begin to “go too far”, which is rumored, is usually attributed not to training, but to an ordinary violation of the regulations.

It was with this kind of training that the first days of recruits’ service began; it was believed that this is how the formation of a military man occurs. Any lawlessness was always punished, hazing was suppressed, and the perpetrators suffered serious punishment.

In the common people, it is the hazing of military personnel, when the more “adult” generation, violating the regulations, abuses the young, which is considered to be hazing.

When did hazing appear in the army?

The first mentions of army hazing have come to us since the times of the USSR. It was then that, while “training” the new recruits, the old-timers massively humiliated, insulted, beat and suppressed morally, citing good intentions.

It was then that among soldiers, ordinary people, the concept of “violation of regulations” was replaced within the framework of the relationship between soldiers and the concept of “hazing.” Many people today confuse these problems without clear distinctions.

Is there hazing in the army 2019

Today, as in the distant 90s, you can hear that in many parts there is still chaos, proof of this is that on the Internet you can easily find a couple of hundred videos filmed and posted by the “grandfathers” themselves.

However, the majority of guys of military age can be absolutely calm; in the Russian army in 2019, this problem has actually been eliminated. We can say with confidence that there are practically no incidents of violation of the charter at the level of employee relations, although hazing does occur!

Unlike the Soviet army, when the service period was at least two years, today, conscript soldiers, starting in 2008, are called up for only a year. The so-called “grandfathers” themselves barely served for six months, such a period does not mean much.

Of course, gross incidents indicating violations still remain, but often only because disagreements often occur in the male team. The guys are trying to resolve everyday issues through conflicts, to establish themselves at someone else’s expense, and to show superiority over the “young people.”

Unfortunately, even now, you can meet a “rotten” campaigner who is happy to try to convey to the recently arrived guys what a seasoned soldier he is, how much he has seen. The essence of morality is conveyed through beatings, beatings, insults, when the angry “grandfather” simply enjoys his superiority and often strength. You need to understand that in this case we are not talking about “hazing”, there is a clear violation of the regulations and such fellows, like criminals in civilian life, must bear real punishment, which also happens in the ranks of the armed forces.

Despite such unpleasant isolated cases, the majority of guys calmly, without such problems among their peers, serve their time, going home often without understanding at all why they are “scared” in civilian life, what this is connected with. The majority of today's soldiers respect the regulations, strictly follow the law, and behave decently and with dignity.

What to do in case of hazing in the army

In order not to become a victim, talking about the consequences of army hazing, it is necessary, first of all, for the young soldiers themselves to share for themselves the boundaries of hazing with experienced soldiers, not to be confused with hazing.

In fact, violation of the regulations is often provoked by recently drafted guys who misunderstand the help of their elders in training. Life advice, explanations of the issues of existence, are sometimes received with hostility, and as you know, aggression, reluctance to obey a seemingly equal, often provokes an explosion of emotions. In this case, it’s not far from assault.

Hazing has always taken place and will always happen, because who, if not those who have already gotten comfortable “here”, will be able to correctly tell and convey to a young soldier what the rules are for army life. There is no need to react aggressively to the help of the “grandfather”; such intervention should not be confused at all with those “assaults” on civilians that take place among young people.

However, when we are really talking about obvious violations of the regulations, serious exaggerations of what was permitted by an old-time soldier, this is the right place to defend yourself, but within the framework of the regulations. To protect yourself in the future from aggression among the “grandfathers”, when receiving a blow to the face, beating and other mental attacks from experienced servants, you just need to write an appropriate report. The culprit or a group of people will certainly be punished. Such incidents are resolved by an army court; in this case, violators face disbat - a disciplinary battalion. The punishment is calculated over a fairly long period of one to two years.

How to serve during hazing

When planning to repay his debt to his homeland, a conscript must initially understand that there is no “hazing” as such in the understanding of the common people in the army. In any situation, you need to learn to restrain yourself and your emotions. Respond correctly to comments and, as far as possible, understand the essence of army life in the shortest possible time.

It is necessary to be able not to provoke the aggression of others, and not to fall into a momentary impulse of weakness, which can lead to serious consequences, both with health and during service life.

It is important to recognize real hazing in time from the usual disregard for the charter on the part of the “grandfathers”. Be able to properly defend yourself within the framework of the charter, without falling for provocation, without once again provoking a conflict in which you yourself may find yourself a victim. You need to understand that most often it is young soldiers who first provoke themselves and then allow themselves to be treated incorrectly. Sometimes the boorish, rude communication of colleagues leads to a fight, which promises many problems, primarily for the recruits themselves.

Today I will tell you whether there is hazing in the army. Before answering this question, I will explain what is hazing in the army, and what is hazing.

Hazing in the army- this is the process of training by old-timers (servicemen of an earlier period of conscription) or, in other words, by the “grandfathers” of young recruits. And hazing in the army is a relationship between soldiers who grossly violate the requirements of the regulations and are usually a violation of the law with all the ensuing consequences.

Hazing in the army today - myth or reality?

As you understand, hazing in the army and hazing in the army are completely different things. Hazing is when young recruits arrive, and “grandfathers” or so-called “demobilization”, servicemen of a more senior conscription begin to teach them, for example, how to walk correctly, speak correctly, address senior military ranks, etc. That is, there is a smooth formation of a military man and, strictly speaking, from this.

Hazing in the army and hazing in the army

Hazing in the army has nothing to do with what you can see, for example, on YouTube by entering it in the search films about hazing in the army. All you see there is hazing in the army.

When you join the army, you are, accordingly, a recruit. You meet half-year students - these are the same soldiers, but they have already served for six months, the so-called “elephants”. In the general understanding, hazing is when a so-called old soldier begins to humiliate a young soldier physically or mentally.

Useful information for conscripts:

• How many days, hours, minutes are left until your demobilization?

But, fortunately, today this problem in the army has generally been eliminated. Therefore, if mothers or young people who are just about to join the army are reading me, remember: there is no hazing in the army!

Now the difference between the grandfathers and the new addition is only six months. Hazing in the army appears because servicemen in the army live in a male group and, of course, they may have disagreements. These disagreements arise for completely different reasons, even everyday ones. So don’t think that the entire army is built on the fact that grandfathers show their superiority over young soldiers.

Many people think that this is what hazing looks like in the army. But that's not true!

In the general understanding, hazing is when an old soldier beats a young soldier (the so-called “spirit”). Of course, a lot depends on the people, and in every military collective there are such “rotten” soldiers who begin to tell what kind of “grandfather” he is and how long he served.

But in fact, given his current service life, what kind of “grandfather” can he be? He served 4-5 months more than the young soldier. But still, mostly more or less adequate young people serve in the army, for whom honor and decency are not empty words, and, accordingly, they do not behave like that.

Young people, now I am turning to you, remember, no matter what the situation, always keep your head cool. Don’t let your emotions get the better of you, because this momentary weakness of yours (the desire to hit someone) can lead to irreversible consequences.

Keep in mind that military people, in particular conscripts, and all their actions are multiplied by three. If in civilian life you hit someone in the face, and even if he writes a statement against you to the police, then you will receive a maximum administrative punishment.

In the army, this is all multiplied by three, if you hit a soldier and he wrote a report on you, then you will 100% be put in the so-called “diesel” - a disciplinary battalion (disbat), where you can serve a year, a year and a half, or a maximum of two years. And this momentary weakness can lead to such disastrous consequences.

Therefore, it is better to send such an opponent to three Russian letters than to bite your own elbows later. To summarize, I would like to say once again: there is no hazing as such. There are conflicts at the everyday level and not entirely adequate soldiers from the senior conscription who think that they are mega cool soldiers.

Also, what I wanted to say in this article: in the army there is hazing and hazing. Only hazing is a good concept, the process of training young recruits, hazing in the army - this is any situation that violates military regulations or laws and can lead to bad consequences.

It is impossible not to notice that recently the population’s trust in the Russian army has increased so much that military craft has again acquired the status of a priority privileged occupation, and military service is gradually turning into a school of life, as it was called in the once existing union. As soon as the state set a course for modernization and re-equipment, fundamental changes were not long in coming.

However, the deplorable state of the armed forces of the 90s will remain in the memory of many people for a long time. Even some military officers today are surprised how Russia managed to maintain its integrity in such difficult times. The defense capability left much to be desired, but it wasn’t even a matter of technical equipment. The motivation of citizens for military service was practically reduced to zero.

Why young men don't want to serve in the army

One of the reasons for this situation was hazing in the Russian army in the nineties. A sociological survey showed that the overwhelming majority of young men fear military service not because of the difficult life of military life, but because of hazing. Fears were supported by feature films, videos, chronicles and stories from experienced people about the difficult life of young recruits.

Is it worth recalling specific cases when a young man was injured or everything ended in death? To this gloomy list it is necessary to add widespread desertion, executions of colleagues, and suicide.

In 1998, the first human rights organization for conscript soldiers was created, which is called the “Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers.” We can say that this was a desperate step aimed at combating hazing, since it was precisely this manifestation in the army that was named as the main reason for the above acts.

Positive or negative social phenomenon

In order to talk sensibly on the topic of hazing, you need to adjust yourself to the fact that this issue is quite multifaceted, and even more disputes arise when establishing one truth. The first paradox is that they have been trying to eradicate this manifestation for many decades, but most men of the older generation will only smile thoughtfully when they mention the peculiar hierarchy in the army. Moreover, they often note that it is thanks to the upbringing by the “grandfathers” that the “spirit” becomes a real soldier.

What is this contradiction? Undoubtedly, families that have suffered from the consequences of hazing will talk about the complete eradication of this relic of society, and former military personnel whose fate was not befallen by tragedy believe that everyone should go through similar trials. The reason for the disagreement lies in the ambiguous understanding of hazing as such.

Find out: How can you become a sniper in the army, what qualities are needed for this?

On the one hand, it is represented by a strict school, which is arranged by old-timers for young recruits. What's bad about it? Of course, the form of education is unique, but as a result, the recruit becomes independent, learns to serve, first of all, himself, observe subordination, live in a team, follow orders, and march correctly.

On the other hand, educational measures sometimes cross not only conceivable boundaries, but also the boundaries of legality. Hazing and lawlessness appear, which is interpreted as a crime against the individual. They are expressed by public humiliation, beating, and other terrible acts. Thus, despite all the negativity, a decent proportion of storekeepers will remember hazing with kind irony, but we will still talk about the dire consequences of this phenomenon.

When did it arise

The next paradox arises when trying to determine the time when hazing appeared in the army. According to the stories of real witnesses, even before the 50s such a concept was not even discussed. The origin of the hierarchy occurred during the Thaw period, when many prisoners for whom military service was provided for were amnestied.

As a result of such reforms, some of the “Zonian concepts” migrated to the armed forces. But the reasons for the emergence of hazing should be discussed separately, and in this regard it should be noted that hazing in the Soviet army of the 50-60s became the basis of modern battles.

And this issue is not without the ubiquitous “BUT”. Some documents, including works of art, indicate a peculiar attitude of old-timers towards new recruits back in tsarist times. And this is not surprising, since military service lasted for decades, so experienced servicemen could not help but claim certain concessions with all that entails.

Reasons for the formation of hazing

We agreed that the phenomenon of hazing has a complex structure. It manifests itself as a set of certain rituals, sometimes causing laughter among the recruits themselves, and can have significant variations, reaching illegal acts. We will look at this social phenomenon from a negative perspective and try to determine where the reasons for the emergence of hazing in the USSR lie.

Find out: What does demobilization in the army mean, how is this non-statutory rank assigned?

After the demobilization of all military personnel who took part in the Second World War, the volleys of shells from real combat operations gradually began to subside in human memory. Within 10-20 years it was possible to talk about peace and cloudless skies. Oddly enough, it was precisely this fact that brought the destruction of former solidarity into society. If a common misfortune unites, then the absence of external conflicts gives rise to internal ones. The army was a kind of “mirror” of the state of society, and taking into account the fact that criminal elements were included in the structure of the troops, the Armed Forces began to gradually be replenished with non-statutory procedures.

The next vector could be the destruction of Stalinist foundations. By the beginning of the 60s, government elites, having escaped from fear of punishment, turned from creators into consumers, which was reflected in the leadership of the army. Freethinking led to the degradation of the command staff. This does not mean that the General Staff was replenished with incompetent commanders, but low ranks were firmly entrenched in the field, whose responsibility was reduced to zero. The connivance of the officers was not the cause, but was a catalyst for the emergence of widespread hazing.

The thaw of the 60s is remembered for its negative attitude towards denunciations and snitching. From a political background, these terms migrated to the army. At that time, a report of bodily harm was considered as lying. And if the state suppressed such manifestations, then what could we talk about within the military unit. Gradually, hazing in the army began to include fights and beatings, which both sides of the conflict were silent about.

Urbanization of society and generational conflict usually stand on the same page, since the motive is the same. Just as old-timers could not accept the principles of newly arrived soldiers, urban residents placed themselves above rural ones, both in terms of social and mental development. On a regional scale, the periphery was constantly in conflict with Muscovites.

What do we have today

Returning to the question of whether hazing exists in the army at the present time, let’s begin to cover the period from the late 90s. Attempts to stop this phenomenon have been made repeatedly. The top management has finally begun to understand that if we do not get rid of hazing, problems with the contingent will arise in every conscription campaign. It should be noted that all attempts were in vain, since the phenomenon, like a virus, affected the armed forces at all levels.

Find out: A detailed overview of the IRP “Russian Army”, what it includes

Among all the proposals on how to combat hazing, some that were quite feasible were put forward, but they fell apart in the face of the cruel reality of the deplorable state of the army.

• Keep the soldiers busy, especially the old-timers, so that they simply don’t have time to torture the young recruits. For implementation, officer personnel were required, which were not available.
• Increase the number of officers. This proposal required significant financial costs. For the budget of that time, the task was considered impossible.
• Introduction of regulatory bodies (independent). This approach risks simulating the military personnel themselves for the sake of sabotaging military orders.
• Transfer of the army to a voluntary basis. The geopolitical situation does not allow such steps to be taken. The territory of Russia is quite large, so there is a risk of not recruiting a sufficient number of troops.
• Tightening of liability for hazing on officers. There were commonplace cases of revenge when, thanks to his own authority, an officer gave orders that humiliated a soldier. Everything happened according to the regulations, so hazing was smoothly transposed into “statutes,” which practically did not change the essence.

With enviable regularity, the topic of hazing in the army, which is commonly called “hazing,” comes up on this blog. Every month new readers are added who are too lazy to go through previous entries on this topic, so from time to time they begin to accuse me of hiding the truth, or varnishing the reality.
Ok, I’ll spend this evening repeating what I’ve already written before, maybe I’ll add something new.

First, let's find out the difference between hazing and hazing.
Hazing is a relationship in the armed forces between military personnel that grossly violates the requirements of the regulations. This could be a beating of a soldier by a soldier, a fight between a soldier and an officer, or even the fact that you forgot to give a military salute to a senior in rank - this is also hazing.
"Hazing." This term does not have a clear definition. It so happens that it is understood as a demonstration of the superiority of a senior conscript over a junior, which can be expressed in beating, bullying, extortion, etc. But a prerequisite is that the offender is older than the offended. The source for “hazing” was the word “grandfather”. According to the unofficial soldier hierarchy, this is a soldier who has served for at least one and a half years.

What kind of hierarchy is this?
The hierarchical ladder consisted of six steps (names may vary depending on the place of service):
1) Smell - a soldier before taking the oath. Usually the oath is taken within two months after arrival at the unit.
2) Spirit - a soldier who has served for up to six months. Formally, the “smell” is between taking the oath and the day when 6 months of service are completed, but it often includes the time when the soldier was “smell”. There is also one more point. Every spring and autumn, an order is issued from the Minister of Defense on the transfer to the reserve of military personnel who have served their military service. Therefore, a transition to a higher level in the unofficial hierarchy can be considered from the moment the next order of the Ministry of Defense is issued, but... For example, we accepted that such a transition is clearly tied to the actual service, i.e. you are a "spirit" until you have served your six months.
3) Elephant - a soldier who served from six to twelve months. The elephant moves to the next level after the next order from the Ministry of Defense on transfer to the reserve.
4) Cherpak (skull) - a soldier who served from one to one and a half years.
5) Grandfather is a soldier who served from one and a half to two years.
6) Demobilization - a serviceman who is subject to the next order of the Ministry of Defense on transfer to the reserve. He is still considered a "grandfather", but a new gradation appears, which indicates that he will soon go home.

How were relations built between military personnel at different levels of the unofficial hierarchy?
It didn’t matter who you were by rank: private, corporal, sergeant, the main thing was who you were by length of service.
"Smells", "perfume" and "elephants" were nothing. They were obliged to carry out the orders of the “cherpakov” and “grandfathers”. Moreover, the “grandfather” had unconditional priority.
The difference between the “spirits” and the “elephants” was minimal; the “elephants” were only allowed to slightly steer the “spirits”.
“Cherpak” was no longer tasked with practically anything (for example, cleaning, running for cigarettes, etc.), he was not pumped or beaten, but he also did not have complete power over the junior calls.
“Grandfather” was a sovereign ruler whom everyone had to obey. He didn’t touch the “scoops,” but he reminded them who was boss. But he chased the “spirits” and “elephants” mercilessly.
It was considered the norm to regularly pump up junior recruits for various offenses, or just like that (“so that they don’t lose their sense of smell”). Beatings, from light blows to blows to the heads with stools and to the backs with bedposts. Requirements to find a cigarette, cleaning and any work only performed by “spirits” and “elephants”.
The “spirit” or “elephant” could not lay a finger on the “grandfather,” because the “grandfathers” deliberately jointly suppressed such actions and maintained disunity among the younger conscripts.
The authority of the “grandfathers” also rested on the fact that due to their longer service life, they knew better the intricacies of the army situation, while the younger conscription was succumbing to unfamiliar conditions.

Why did the command and law enforcement agencies not pay attention to such an outrageous situation?
The officers turned a blind eye to the existing unofficial hierarchy and silently approved of it, because it was possible to shift some of their responsibilities to the “grandfathers”. It was simply convenient for them that one part of the soldiers kept the other in check, ensuring that orders were carried out and that apparent order was maintained in the unit. They stopped any attempts to wash dirty linen in public, i.e. report offenses to the military prosecutor's office.
The “grandfathers,” in turn, cultivated two approaches among the younger recruits:
1) “You’re a real kid, aren’t you? Do you understand that it’s a shame to knock?” Drilling this principle into the head, the constant threat of physical force, and the lack of information where to turn to protect their rights forced the juniors to endure bullying, which was flavored with the following “carrot”:
2) “You yourself will become a “grandfather” and then you will serve happily! And the “spirits” will serve you!”
The work of the military prosecutor's office was limited to responding only to the loudest manifestations of "hazing", when someone from the junior conscription was subjected to such a severe beating that he received fractures, broken internal organs and brain hemorrhages. Or he died altogether. Then, yes, a criminal case was opened against the offender, and he was sent either to a disbat or to prison.

This is the sad state of affairs our army faced in 2006, when the case of Private Sychev, who lost his legs as a result of bullying, thundered throughout the country. After this, the ice of indifference broke. A clear target was sent down from above: to put an end to hazing. The military prosecutor's office began, overcoming the previous "blindness" and "lethargy", to gradually work to eradicate crime in the army.

So what about hazing in the current army?
As you well know, the service life is now only one year. Accordingly, the former army hierarchy collapsed. Now, according to the classics, we have two main gradations in the unofficial hierarchy: “spirits” and “elephants”. As you remember, these were the two lowest rungs of military personnel on the “hazing” ladder.
Maybe the “elephants” transformed into “grandfathers” and began to mock the “spirits”? No, that didn't happen. Any military man knows that a conscript soldier begins to feel at home in the army, like a fish in water, just on the threshold between the first and second years of service. It is then that he develops a feeling of significant superiority over the young soldier who has only recently joined the army. But in the modern army, it is during this period that military personnel who have served 12 months are transferred to the reserve.
So what then about “hazing”? She's gone.

But this is a lie, every now and then there are reports that soldiers are being beaten and abused! So there is hazing!
Above, we have already figured out what the difference is between “hazing” and hazing, so now we are seeing hazing in the army.

It looks like just a change of sign, but the essence has not changed. Everything is the same...
No, everything is simpler and more complicated at the same time. First, let's look at what the current hazing is. I do not take into account minor mistakes in giving the military salute, but will focus specifically on crimes in the army.
Nowadays, violence, bullying and extortion against colleagues is carried out not by senior conscripts, but by simply physically strong guys with antisocial behavior who don’t care how long you served.
What, basically, do hazing look like on their part? Beatings are not very common, because control over military personnel has been significantly strengthened (this will be written below), so the matter is often limited to only threats of using physical force, but this is quite enough. Moral pressure rules, as they say.
What are they trying to achieve with these threats? Basically, doing some dirty work that the offender has no desire to do himself. Cleaning a room is a classic example of this. In addition, they use threats and even beatings to achieve another common crime - extortion of this or that property.
Now the vast majority of soldiers have cell phones in their hands, and there are also quite expensive models. Relatives of many military personnel send considerable sums of money. All this becomes an object of desire for a certain group of people with criminal intentions. The case may end in simple theft, or perhaps outright extortion, often disguised as the purchase of the subject of extortion. So, for example, a cell phone worth 9,000 rubles is sold to a strong colleague after hilling for a completely insignificant amount.

So what is being done to solve the problem of hazing?
As I said above, after Sychev’s case thundered throughout the country, the flywheel of prosecutorial investigations finally began to gain momentum. With the beginning of the reform of the army, the requirements for the efficiency of the prosecutor's office became even more intense. Now any appeal by a serviceman to the prosecutor's office regarding hazing automatically leads to the initiation of a criminal case.
The higher command requires officers to suppress instances of hazing and immediately report any emergencies on this basis.
In each location where soldiers live, on information stands there are official and personal telephone numbers of the unit command, employees of the military prosecutor's office and the FSB, the chairman of the garrison military court, and the committee of soldiers' mothers. Soldiers can communicate them to their relatives, and they, in turn, have the opportunity to assist the soldier in solving problems by contacting competent persons on the ground.
In many units, physical examinations are carried out to check for signs of hazing: bruises, abrasions.

If everything is so perfectly arranged, then why do hazing still occur?
As in any business, there are also pitfalls here.
Yes, officers are required to immediately report cases of hazing in the unit entrusted to them, but they are not very eager to do this. Why? Because according to established tradition in our army, it is customary to punish the entire command chain of a unit for an emergency. From sergeant to battalion commander, and if the case had resonance in the media, then to the unit commander. Punishment can range from a simple reprimand to dismissal, and from deprivation of a cash bonus to delay in promotion through the ranks. So it turns out that the officer uses force to report the problem of hazing, while trying in every possible way to soften it or hush it up.
The next problem is the poor awareness of soldiers about their rights. Yes, in many units they are given information about responsibility for hazing, but there is no purposeful work by the state in explaining to future/current soldiers their rights. In my opinion, even at school, as part of pre-conscription training, young people should be clearly explained the norms of behavior in the army, informed about responsibility for committing illegal actions, and told about possible measures to protect themselves and colleagues from manifestations of hazing. In the army, this information must be again communicated and consolidated.
A huge problem in the fight against hazing is a false stereotype of behavior that is very common among soldiers: “knocking is bad.” It is an absolutely irrational principle when an offended person does not report a crime being committed against him, simply because it is not “like a boy.” The offender is happy to cultivate a principle that is so beneficial to him, which allows him to commit offenses with impunity. In my opinion, the stupidest situation is when the offended person is afraid to report a crime because his colleagues may condemn him for violating the stereotype of “knocking badly.” And when one of these colleagues is offended, he, in turn, remains silent so that he is not judged by other servicemen, including the one who remained silent the previous time. Stunning legal nihilism, which is revered as valor.
Let me sum it up. The main problems in the fight against hazing are:
- the vicious practice of punishing officers for incidents in the unit, regardless of the degree of guilt of the person being punished;
- poor knowledge of their rights by military personnel serving under conscription;
- the vicious principle of “not knocking like a boy.”

But what kind of fight against hazing is this if the main military prosecutor’s office constantly talks about the growth of this category of crimes?
With all due respect to the military prosecutor's office, we see a slight manipulation of public opinion. If earlier crimes were often simply not recorded, which gave a benign picture of low crime, then in recent years, when they stopped turning a blind eye to the problem of hazing and began to practice the indispensable institution of criminal cases, a “miracle” happened: there was an “increase” in the number of offenses. And the explanation is simple: crimes simply began to be recorded. And the upcoming emergence of the military police, which to some extent will compete with the military prosecutor’s office, leads to the latter’s desire to defend its positions by concentrating public opinion on the “expanding” wave of crime in the army environment.

And one last thing. The army is not a Utopia Country, where, unlike the rest of society, there are no problems. These problems are similar to the civilian environment, but have their own specifics. The specificity of a large number of men of the same age group, brought together by force of circumstances into small territories, where they will have to spend 365 days under one roof. Here, just as in civilian life, fights and beatings can occur, including fatal ones. Here people can commit suicide, both as a result of problems not related to the service (classic - breaking up a relationship with a girl) or directly related to it (bullying by colleagues). They may get hit by a car, or be poisoned by surrogate alcohol. Drowning, getting sick, whatever. It’s harder to do all this in the army, because control over actions and movements is much more serious than in civilian life (anyone who has served will confirm this), but problems cannot be completely ruled out.
But one of the main achievements of recent years can be proudly stated: the army has gotten rid of the shameful phenomenon called “hazing.” The problem of hazing is completely solvable, but this requires a lot of work on the part of the state, and no less work on each citizen who is about to serve in the army.

Hazing in the army in 2016 - myth or reality? Hazing and hazing in the army. What it is? And are these concepts different from each other? Or, on the contrary, are hazing and hazing in the army about the same thing?

In this article, let's dot the i's in the analysis of each of these concepts. And, most importantly, let’s answer the question: is there hazing in the army in 2016?

As always, I want to start with an analysis of the basic concepts. I am sure that in this way I will be able to clarify the meaning of both hazing and hazing. But here everything is not so simple...

Hazing and hazing

Friends, you won't believe this. But I just looked at the all-knowing Wikipedia and realized that the concept of hazing is not described there entirely correctly. Wikipedia was wrong. Now I have seen everything in life.

Let me explain my words with concrete evidence. Here is the definition of hazing from.

“Hazing” (analogue in the Navy - “Godkovshchina”) is an unofficial hierarchical system of relationships between lower-ranking military personnel (soldiers, corporals, sergeants) that has developed in the Armed Forces, based on their ranking, “sorting” based on the amount of service actually served by each specific individual and related discrimination, one of the types of hazing. It is semi-criminal in nature and usually manifests itself in the form of exploitation, psychological and physical violence.

Nevertheless, there is some truth in this definition. I agree with the definition right down to the words “... and related discrimination.” Because next - substitution of concepts.

The stereotype that hazing in the army is hell is already firmly ingrained in our heads. Massacres, grandfathers beating spirits with chairs at night and all sorts of similar horror.

What I want to say is that it is not true. And I want to explain the true meaning of this concept, which I became acquainted with only through my service in the Training Battalion of the VA MTO.

I won't come up with a lot of clever words. I will say it briefly and as simply as possible.

Hazing in the army is a learning process proper service soldier of young replenishment (last conscription) by old-timers (). As of 2015 - soldiers of the previous conscription, since the service period is now only 1 year.

What is hazing in specific examples? These are extraordinary drill classes conducted by old-timers, because at first no one knows how to walk in the ranks, a visual explanation to new recruits of the rules of addressing comrades and officers, and the development of military discipline among newly drafted personnel.

Dozens of similar examples can be given. The meaning remains the same. Hazing is a process of helping a newly arrived soldier to quickly adapt under the supervision of one or more old-timers. First of all, the junior sergeant, who is appointed deputy platoon commander.

In reality, this is what happens. You are drafted into the army, you come there. And at the time of your arrival, there were still N people from the previous conscription left in the unit, that is, old-timers. They will be the ones who will teach you the basics of military service.

No fights, humiliation or public insults.

Hazing is good and useful tradition, and not the massacre that can be seen in thousands of videos on YouTube when searching for “hazing in the army 2015.”

It was like that for us. That's how we were taught. And we will continue this tradition in our battalion. Because in our part the Charter is loved and respected. Now let's talk about those who don't.

This is where it’s hard to argue with Wikipedia. The definition is short and precise.

Hazing relationships in the Armed Forces are relationships between military personnel that grossly violate the requirements of the regulations and are usually a violation of the law.

I agree 100%. Hazing is the same massacres, humiliation and mass fights that are also present in our army.

I cannot answer for all military units of Russia, of course. But trust me. Over the past six months, I have talked with many military personnel from different parts of our vast Motherland.

And this is what I can say with 100% confidence. There is hazing in the ranks of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. In many parts, unfortunately.

I can say for sure that we don’t have them. Any attempts not only to fight, but even to think about it are nipped in the bud.

Since my service, we began to be fed stories of how particularly daring cadets and soldiers fought among themselves, or even simply pushed a comrade, after which the latter fell and cut his eyebrow.

I cut my eyebrow and that's it! Do you understand how small it is compared to what happens in other parts? What is the outcome of the story? The culprit was sent to a disciplinary battalion for 2 years.

After returning he will serve out his term in the army. That is, first 2 years in the disbat, and then serve in the army. It was a good push, right? Now imagine what thoughts are reigning in this guy’s head right now, given that he is still serving in the disbat? Do you think he regretted what he did?

I think yes. But now it’s not about him.

I recently spoke with several of my friends who are also currently serving in the army. In their units there are hazing relationships and they are quite developed. Suffice it to say that in response to my question to one of them: “How many times did you fight?” I received the answer: “I lost count.”

And I heard similar words from more than one person. Well... Friends, I will not stretch out my opinion about hazing in the army over the entire next half of the article. You will recognize him at the very end.

My task in this article is to show difference between the concepts of hazing and hazing and, in a sense, restore justice.

So let's summarize and summarize.

Results

1. The concepts of “hazing” and “hazing” - Different things.
2. You cannot call “hazing” a type of hazing. Hazing is a good old tradition. And I never had any assault or similar things.
3. And hazing and hazing present in the Russian army.
4. I would like to separately note once again: in my unit there is hazing, but there is no hazing.
5. There are people who consider hazing to be an integral part of modern service. There are those who categorically disagree with them. We live in a free country and We have the right to our opinion.

P.S. Dear blog readers. I sincerely hope that I was able to convey to you the main idea for which I wrote this article. In a nutshell it can be expressed this way:

Hazing is good. Hazing is bad. The Russian army has both the first and the second.

Whatever your attitude towards these two features of army life, I ask you for help.

As I said at the beginning of the article, I was overcome by a crazy thought before writing it: to restore justice and return the concept of “hazing” to its true meaning in the minds of our citizens.

I ask you to convey my words or the text of this article to as many people around us as possible. Personal recommendations/repost/send an article with a link via personal message or publication in your own public page. I will be glad for any support.

Thank you in advance to everyone involved in this great cause!